(May 21, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 12:31 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: I'll tell you a true story that might explain my (fairly ignorant) views on abiogenesis and the second law.  When I was about 9 or 10 years old, I asked my dad to buy me a baseball glove.  Eventually he did, and before he did he told me that he would buy me a baseball glove only if I promise to bring it in the house and put it away after each use.  It was not acceptable to leave it outside on the ground.  My dad didn't need to explain the second law to me.  I already understood that whether our planet is an open system or a closed system, my 20 dollar glove wasn't going to gradually (or suddenly) become a 20 million dollar glove simply by allowing the forces of nature to begin working their magic on my baseball glove.  Instead, my 20 dollar glove was going to become a 20 cent glove by allowing the effects of time and the somewhat unpredictable forces of nature to act upon it.

Seriously? That's your response? You're not even going to acknowledge that you were wrong?

You claimed that the second law of thermodynamics proves that abiogenesis cannot happen, and I showed that the second law doesn't even apply to the planet. In response, without even correcting the error, you tell this ridiculous story that is not relevant in any way to the second law, because the second law doesn't say anything about the "forces of nature" and somehow you think this completely irrelevant gibberish is a cogent rebuttal?

Did I say that our planet is a closed system?  Can you tell me where I went wrong? 

It was clear that you are completely ignorant of he 2nd law of thermodynamics, and what abiogenesis is. That point you were successful in portraying.

What that had to do with the conversation and why you posted it is the part that is not clear.

(May 21, 2015 at 1:19 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Iroscato Wrote: I stand corrected, your actual next trick was to claim evolution is false because baseball gloves aren't alive.
Good grief. You have exceeded even my most mocking expectations.

I thought I made it perfectly clear that my baseball glove story was my attempt to explain my (fairly ignorant) understanding of the second law as it relates to abiogenesis, not how it relates to stuff that is already alive.

You admit your ignorance, I'll give you that. I just have no idea what the hell you're trying to do. There is already a perfectly valid explanation for how life started - naturally occurring catalysts that, over an extremely long time, allowed gradually more complicated chemical constructs to form.
We shouldn't even have to have this conversation in the 21st century, but here we are, I guess.

(May 21, 2015 at 1:21 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Seriously? That's your response? You're not even going to acknowledge that you were wrong?

You claimed that the second law of thermodynamics proves that abiogenesis cannot happen, and I showed that the second law doesn't even apply to the planet. In response, without even correcting the error, you tell this ridiculous story that is not relevant in any way to the second law, because the second law doesn't say anything about the "forces of nature" and somehow you think this completely irrelevant gibberish is a cogent rebuttal?

Did I say that our planet is a closed system?  Can you tell me where I went wrong? 

You asserted that the second law of thermodynamics renders abiogenesis impossible. The second law of thermodynamics applies exclusively to closed systems. Planet Earth is not a closed system, and therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to things that happen on it. Abiogenesis, as we are discussing it, happened on Earth, and is therefore exempt from the strictures of the second law. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not render abiogenesis impossible, and your initial claim is falsified.

This is, of course, a highly simplified account; I could go into a number of other areas in which you're wrong too, such as what entropy is, how local decreases in entropy would not noticeably impact the overall level of entropy within the system, or how the diversification of life may actually constitute an increase in entropy when contrasted with a lack of life. But it's best to stick with the basics, especially when they're sufficient.

(May 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 1:21 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: Did I say that our planet is a closed system?  Can you tell me where I went wrong? 

You asserted that the second law of thermodynamics renders abiogenesis impossible. The second law of thermodynamics applies exclusively to closed systems. Planet Earth is not a closed system, and therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to things that happen on it. Abiogenesis, as we are discussing it, happened on Earth, and is therefore exempt from the strictures of the second law. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not render abiogenesis impossible, and your initial claim is falsified.

This is, of course, a highly simplified account; I could go into a number of other areas in which you're wrong too, such as what entropy is, how local decreases in entropy would not noticeably impact the overall level of entropy within the system, or how the diversification of life may actually constitute an increase in entropy when contrasted with a lack of life. But it's best to stick with the basics, especially when they're sufficient.

So you're saying that over sufficiently long periods of time (a few million years perhaps), my dad would have been wrong to think that entropy would increase and eventually render the baseball glove LESS "orderly" and possibly even useless? 

(May 21, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You asserted that the second law of thermodynamics renders abiogenesis impossible. The second law of thermodynamics applies exclusively to closed systems. Planet Earth is not a closed system, and therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to things that happen on it. Abiogenesis, as we are discussing it, happened on Earth, and is therefore exempt from the strictures of the second law. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not render abiogenesis impossible, and your initial claim is falsified.

This is, of course, a highly simplified account; I could go into a number of other areas in which you're wrong too, such as what entropy is, how local decreases in entropy would not noticeably impact the overall level of entropy within the system, or how the diversification of life may actually constitute an increase in entropy when contrasted with a lack of life. But it's best to stick with the basics, especially when they're sufficient.

So you're saying that over sufficiently long periods of time (a few million years perhaps), my dad would have been wrong to think that entropy would increase and eventually render the baseball glove LESS "orderly" and possibly even useless? 

Immediately after you call someone out for (what you perceived as) putting words in your mouth...  sigh...

And thus the POE jumps the shark.

(May 21, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: So you're saying that over sufficiently long periods of time (a few million years perhaps), my dad would have been wrong to think that entropy would increase and eventually render the baseball glove LESS "orderly" and possibly even useless? 

I am saying that the second law is not relevant in discussions of abiogenesis, and it certainly isn't the only consideration to be made here; for one, you don't exactly seem to know what entropy even is. Entropy is what the second law discusses, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fate of your baseball glove; entropy simply discusses energy, and how it disperses throughout a closed system over time. The example you're giving isn't even applicable to what you were originally talking about; do you seriously know that little about the subject you brought up, that you'll drift off somewhere else entirely without knowing it?

Secondly, you cannot even draw a proper comparison between the pre-biotic Earth and your baseball glove, because they are completely different things; you could probably disprove the idea that ice melts if the only examples you're willing to consider are of liquid water, or fire, but the fact is that examples generally have to be applicable to the discussion, which yours are not. The state the Earth is in now is radically different from how it was at the time of the original abiogenetic event, whatever that may be, and so of course the effect it has on matter will be radically different too. What you're doing is akin to stating that ice can't melt, because you don't see the ocean melting. There's a few factors different between what you're talking about, and the example you're giving against it.

And frankly, I think you probably knew that, and are being facetious. It's not a great look for you. You may want to try conversing honestly.

(May 21, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: So you're saying that over sufficiently long periods of time (a few million years perhaps), my dad would have been wrong to think that entropy would increase and eventually render the baseball glove LESS "orderly" and possibly even useless? 

I am saying that the second law is not relevant in discussions of abiogenesis, and it certainly isn't the only consideration to be made here; for one, you don't exactly seem to know what entropy even is. Entropy is what the second law discusses, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fate of your baseball glove; entropy simply discusses energy, and how it disperses throughout a closed system over time. The example you're giving isn't even applicable to what you were originally talking about; do you seriously know that little about the subject you brought up, that you'll drift off somewhere else entirely without knowing it?

Secondly, you cannot even draw a proper comparison between the pre-biotic Earth and your baseball glove, because they are completely different things; you could probably disprove the idea that ice melts if the only examples you're willing to consider are of liquid water, or fire, but the fact is that examples generally have to be applicable to the discussion, which yours are not. The state the Earth is in now is radically different from how it was at the time of the original abiogenetic event, whatever that may be, and so of course the effect it has on matter will be radically different too. What you're doing is akin to stating that ice can't melt, because you don't see the ocean melting. There's a few factors different between what you're talking about, and the example you're giving against it.

And frankly, I think you probably knew that, and are being facetious. It's not a great look for you. You may want to try conversing honestly.

I hate to admit it Esquilax, but I really am that ignorant, especially regarding science.  I'm not being facetious, I'm just not very well educated.  And I'm honored to learn from you and all of the other good and well educated people here at AF.  If it appears that I'm struggling with the concept of increasing entropy, it might be because there are certain things that you and others here have pointed out to me that I simply don't understand. 

I do understand that the pre-biotic earth must have been extremely different than anything that I can imagine.  But I still think that open system or closed, prebiotic or post, whatever the second law says, it is basically saying that even if I run my baseball glove up a flag pole and keep it there for millions of years ...so nature (lightning?) can act on it, the baseball glove will completely disintegrate LONG before the unpredictable forces of nature ever get a chance to change it into something vastly more ordered.  Where am I wrong?  And thanks for being so patient with me!

   Enough with the baseball glove!